The internet is promoting the idea of replacing uranium-based light water reactors with nuclear reactors fueled by thorium. However, a 2014 US Energy Department study found that waste from thorium-uranium fuel cycles has similar radioactivity at 100 years. As the search for cheap, safe, and non-carbon emitting sources of energy continues, some scientists believe that thorium reactors may be the answer. Thorium reactor technology utilized by China offers a promising alternative, combining enhanced safety features with the potential for more sustainable use.
The thorium fuel cycle is more proliferation resistant than alternatives, as a power reactor would produce enough U232 along with U233 to make the U233. Professor of Reactor Physics Jan-Leen Kloosterman has high expectations of recent developments in China, India, and Japan. Scientists in China are preparing to turn on an experimental reactor believed to be the Holy Grail of nuclear energy, safer, cheaper, and with less potential.
Claims that next-generation thorium reactors would be safer than current reactors are false. Nuclear energy is already very safe, and there is no compelling need either technical or financial. There is no infrastructure to support a thorium fuel cycle, so claims that thorium reactors would be proliferation-resistant or proliferation-proof do not stand up to scrutiny.
India’s indigenous nuclear reactor prototype and abundant thorium reserves hold the key to the country’s future energy security. The Enhanced Candu 6 reactor design is technically practical and feasible, and the design’s “enhanced” design is cited as a key factor in the country’s future energy security.
📹 It’s Happening – China Launches World’s First Thorium Nuclear Reactor
China just announced the construction of the Wolds First nuclear power plant fuelled by molten Thorium salt. JOIN US for …
How much energy does 1 ton of thorium produce?
Thorium is a highly efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy, surpassing other nuclear energy sources like uranium. CERN estimates that 1 ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, equivalent to 3. 5 million tons of coal. In the United States, a single ton of thorium can heat 1 million houses for nearly 3 years each. Unlike other nuclear energy sources, thorium is almost impossible to meltdown, making it a green and carbon-neutral option.
It is safer to extract, cheaper to use, and more abundant than other forms of nuclear energy. Furthermore, thorium is 3. 5 million times more efficient than coal, saving time, effort, and money in the extraction process. While nuclear energy has a negative reputation due to tragic events, it is unfair to characterize all nuclear energy sources as imminent disasters, as thorium does not have the potential to meltdown, thus eliminating all potential catastrophes in thorium-based nuclear power plants.
Is thorium toxic to humans?
Thorium, a chemical element that is naturally present in bones, can be inhaled as a dust-like substance and remain in the lungs for extended periods. In the event of ingestion, the substance is typically excreted from the body in the form of feces and urine. The remainder of the thorium enters the bloodstream, where it may be deposited in the bones, thereby increasing the risk of developing lung or bone cancer.
Why can’t thorium reactors meltdown?
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth’s crust. The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates that there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1, 000 years. Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99. 3 fertile U-238 and 0. 7 more valuable fissile U-235.
Thorium is less suitable for bombs, as it is not fissile like uranium, so packed thorium nuclei will not begin to split apart and explode. However, the uranium-233 used in the cycle is fissile and hence can be used to create a nuclear weapon, though plutonium production is reduced. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser isotope separation techniques could facilitate that process.
There is much less nuclear waste when thorium is used as a fuel in a liquid fluoride thorium reactor—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller, eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage. Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.
There are fewer reaction startup ingredients, as breeding reactors need no other fuel except thorium because they make most or all of their own fuel. The transition to thorium could be done through the incineration of weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or civilian plutonium. No enrichment is necessary, as all natural thorium can be used as fuel, and U-238, as fertile fuel in the uranium-plutonium cycle, is a potential way to produce long-term nuclear energy with low radio-toxicity waste.
Mining thorium is safer and more efficient than mining uranium, as its ore, monazite, generally contains higher concentrations of thorium than the percentage of uranium found in its respective ore. Thorium mining is also easier and less dangerous than uranium mining, as the mine is an open pit, which requires no ventilation, unlike underground uranium mines, where radon levels can be potentially harmful.
Thorium could provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying public concern—weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and costly and complicated to process fuel. However, significant and expensive testing, analysis, and licensing work would be required, requiring business and government support.
Thorium, when irradiated for use in reactors, makes uranium-232, which emits gamma rays. This irradiation process may be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233, which would then create uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232 for use in nuclear weapons, making thorium into a dual purpose fuel.
Why is no one using thorium reactors?
Thorium, a silvery, slightly radioactive metal found in igneous rocks and heavy mineral sands, is three to four times more abundant than uranium but has historically been used in industry and power generation. Thorium-232, the only naturally occurring isotope of thorium, is a fissionable material but not a fissile one, requiring high-energy neutrons to undergo fission. When irradiated, it undergoes nuclear reactions, eventually forming uranium-233, a fissile material that can be burned up as fuel in nuclear reactors.
Thorium can generate more fissile material than it consumes while fueling a water-cooled or molten-salt reactor. The Earth’s upper crust contains an average of 10. 5 parts per million (ppm) of thorium, compared to about 3 ppm of uranium. Due to its abundance and fissile material breeding capability, thorium could potentially offer a long-term solution to humanity’s energy needs.
Why is thorium worse than uranium?
The effectiveness of thorium is less pronounced in fast reactors than that of U-Pu, which occupies a position between U-235 and Pu-239 in the fast spectrum. This results in a slower breeding doubling time for thorium cycles in comparison to uranium-plutonium cycles. Furthermore, thorium cycles are not well-suited for reactors that require an excellent neutron economy, such as breed-and-burn concepts.
Is thorium actually good?
The thorium fuel cycle offers long-term energy security benefits due to its potential as a self-sustaining fuel without the need for fast neutron reactors. India has made thorium utilization for large-scale energy production a major goal in its nuclear power programme, using a three-stage concept first proposed at the University of Chicago in 1944. This includes pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs) and light water reactors fuelled by natural uranium, which produce plutonium that is separated for use in fuels in its fast reactors and indigenous advanced heavy water reactors.
Fast breeder reactors (FBRs) will use plutonium-based fuel to extend their plutonium inventory, while advanced heavy water reactors (AHWRs) will burn thorium-plutonium fuels to breed U-233, which can be used as a self-sustaining fissile driver for a fleet of breeding AHWRs.
Are thorium reactors the future of nuclear energy?
Thorium, a future nuclear fuel, offers advantageous physical and chemical properties over uranium, higher energy density, and less waste due to its greater natural abundance. The major sources of global electricity production are crude oil, coal, natural gas, biofuels/waste, nuclear, and hydro. Despite historical gaps in access to electricity, the lack of accessibility has decreased globally, but in regions of greater population growth, the gap remains proportionally large.
The lifecycle of GHG emissions from various electricity sources is presented in Figure 2, with the highest emissions from lignite, coal, oil, and solar PV sectors, while nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind energies have substantially lower emissions. Understanding the lifecycle GHG emissions of a product or process is crucial for evaluating its environmental impact by quantifying emissions at each stage of the product or process’s lifecycle.
Nuclear reprocessing is included in the lifecycle GHG emissions of nuclear energy, which involves extracting usable nuclear materials from spent nuclear fuel. This process allows for the recovery and reuse of valuable nuclear materials and reduces waste disposal. However, this process requires significant amounts of electricity and other energy inputs, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
There are also environmental and safety concerns associated with the handling and storage of nuclear waste and the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
Is it safe to use thorium reactor?
Nuclear power can serve future energy needs, but thorium is a better choice for smaller modular reactors due to its abundance, safety, and ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Thorium reactors are less costly and require less permitting, and by-products from thorium reactors are less radioactive and safe after about 100 years. Thorium also alleviates concerns about nuclear reactor safety. CANDU (Canada deuterium uranium) thorium reactors have been built, and the US has built 1, 3, and 5 MW prototypes.
Grid connection is not an issue, and many nations could provide safe and reliable electricity using thorium nuclear power. Thorium nuclear energy should be an important component for power generation and is safer than uranium for this use. The US and the world need thorium nuclear power.
Why can’t thorium be weaponized?
Thorium cannot be weaponized due to its insufficient production of recoverable plutonium, which is necessary for nuclear weapons. Thorium waste is dangerous for a few hundred years, unlike uranium waste, which can last for thousands of years. Thorium reactors cannot undergo a meltdown, and it is more abundant than uranium, with supplies in Australia, India, and Idaho. Thorium is also more efficient, as it can be extracted from the ground and ready for use in reactors, unlike uranium, which requires further processing.
Is uranium cheaper than thorium?
Despite its greater abundance relative to uranium, thorium does not represent a more economical option for nuclear energy due to its comparatively lower cost. The capital cost of a nuclear plant represents the primary driver of nuclear energy economics, and the construction of a thorium reactor is not a more cost-effective option.
Which country has the most thorium?
India possesses the largest reserves of thorium in the world. The UP Police Constable Answer Key Notice for the August 2024 examination has been released. Candidates may register their objections online by providing their registration number, date of birth, and question booklet number. The notification pertains to 60, 244 vacancies.
📹 Nuclear Physicist Explains – What are Thorium Reactors?
Nuclear Physicist Explains – What are Thorium Reactors? For exclusive content as well as to support the channel, join my Support …
Is this beginning of a new age of nuclear? Let me know what you think below 👇👇And big thanks to Radiacode for sponsoring today’s episode! Get your own radiation detector and use code here: 103.radiacode.com/DrBenMiles ☢📻 This is genuinely an awesome product – I’ve be playing with it for a week straight now. Slightly concerned that Gimli, my dog 🐶 is the highest radiation source in my house. What does this mean… Is he ok… Possible super powers in his future…(?) Send help…
This article is somewhat misleading. The Chinese TMSR-LF1 is in fact a uranium burner, not a thorium breeder reactor. The primary fissile material is standard Uranium-235, and the plant will burn essentially the same amount of U235 as any other nuclear reactor, it will also require the same amount of mined uranium as a standard reactor. The TMSR-LF1 removes some fertile U238 from the fuel and replaces it with fertile Th232 instead. However, the vast majority of the power still comes from good old fashioned fissile U235. Describing it as a “thorium reactor” is like describing a standard gasoline engine running on E5 (5% ethanol, 95% gasoline) as an “ethanol engine”. It is, however, a molten salt reactor – which is a lot more interesting.
A cousin who worked at Hanford was arguing for thorium as far back as 1990. He and some colleagues tried to get the companies that ran Hanford to look to the future and invest in development, to no avail. The big problem was that executives were not immune to the scare about nuclear power and the fact that temperatures would rival those of lava made thorium seem more dangerous still,
Using molten salt has one further advantage. It avoids something that caused a couple of the explosions at Fukushima and may have contributed to the Chernobyl disaster. It has been shown when the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods gets exposed to air, the steam begins to react with the hot metal and the metal oxidizes, releasing hydrogen gas. It is known that at least one of the explosions at Fukushima was a hydrogen, not steam, explosion. If the system does not contain any water, this reaction cannot occur.
One additional advantage China has in the pursuit of Thorium power is its widespread deployment of UHV power grids, which enables profitable electricity transmission across far longer distances with lower transmission loss relative to conventional power lines. This enables the PRC to place Thorium power plants in far more remote locations, & take advantage of massive amounts of under-utilized land in its interior. This provides both economic & security benefits.
Not only is thorium 3-4 times more abundant than uranium, as you said, but over 99% of uranium, U-238 is not fissile (able to be split when hit with a neutron). In order to use it, the mix must be enriched by removing some of the U-238 and leaving a higher percentage of U-235. This is very expensive. In contrast, thorium is 100% usable. A sample is hundreds of times less expensive than uranium. The main drawback to thorium is that a molten salt mixture is corrosive and can eat away at the container it is in.
@13:16 I remember perusal a documentary some years ago where the oak ridge scientist, old and dying and very frustrated that nobody cared about their decades old research, just gave it for free to chinese scientists. And then the media in the US started to pay attention to them, in a negative way of course. Was such a shame that their work was forgotten all this time. Also I do remember reading about some experimental thorium rector in Norway.
I saw this article in Business Insider. Molten-salt reactors were first built in the 1950s but haven’t been used in the US since the 1970s. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued a permit to build a molten-salt nuclear plant. Kairos Power is heading the project, which it hopes to finish by 2027.
Not mentioned in this article: the primary reason the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was ultimately considered to have “failed”, was that the flouride salt used was damaging the Hastelloy piping at a much faster rate than anticipated. It is well known that neutron bombardment causes embrittlement of most steel alloys, specifically, it increases the nil-ductility transition temperature of the steel, but in the case of the MSRE, the hot flouride salt was not only chemically attacking the pipes and valves, it was also reducing the ductility, a dangerous condition because embrittlement can result in catastrophic failure of a pipe from even a minor impact or vibration stress, for example, if a high-speed gate valve is triggered to slam closed in some type of shutdown emergency. The salt damage to the piping was so widespread, that the engineers determined that the entire piping system needed to be replaced after only 5 years; this would be completely unacceptable in a commercial power plant. I wonder how the Chinese have solved this problem in their molten-salt reactor? At the time that the MSRE was built in the 1960’s, Hastelloy was the most corrosion-resistant alloy known, maybe the Chinese engineers have come up with something better?
Am so happy that we finally did it. When I was in my early teens (circa 2004) my dream was to develop a thorium reactor. When time came to choose between Engineering degree, I chose computer engineering ‘causs it was guaranteeing a job in India. ( to be honest I do not think I would be good enough to crack the exams in our atomic research center) I saw policies regarding Nuclear power in multiple countries and thought may be no one is going to build a thorium one in the end. I know India has border skirmishes with China and we do not share a close ally relationship with China. I am still happy with their achievement. I feel proud as we ( as a species) finally did it.
Thorium requires more neutron bombardments to become a long-lived trans-uranic (heavier than uranium) isotope. A molten salt reactor can continuously filter out the protactinium and uranium before the fuel receives sufficient neutrons to become a trans-uranic. For this reason, a molten salt reactor running on thorium can theoretically avoid the vast majority of long-lived isotopes. Even better, using long-lived trans-uranic isotopes is also possible, as in neutron flux these will eventually split. All these elements are either fertile (being able to receive neutrons to become fissile) or fissile. This means a molten salt reactor could also theoretically burn up 100% of the long-lived nuclear waste. This would result in highly radioactive, short-lived nuclear waste. Solid reactors don’t do this because of gaseous fission products destroying the solid fuel elements. Thought this was an important point to share, which the article glossed over.
As you pointed out, the US had thorium reactors running since the 1950’s. The US gov’t shifted away from thorium due to the ability of uranium reactors producing plutonium, which was in dire need during the cold war. IMHO, this tech needs to be revisited for the specific purpose of producing base load power, and not just power as available upon the prevailing skies, and currently available energy storage techniques.
Oak Ridge National Lab had a Thorium reactor working for over 5 years without any issue. There are many reasons speculated on why it didnt become used. I tend to believe it due to taking longer to make into fuel for nukes, which where very popular at that time and radiation wasn’t fully understood or at least it wasnt understood on its effects on the environment. Remember, at one time the US Gov wanted to use nukes to make lakes and reservoirs. So Thorium got kicked to the side and was generally mostly forgotten about in terms of being a viable fuel.
Fun fact: When there was a race for approval by Nixon for moving to nuclear plants, a molten salt/ Thorium reactor was built however it had a “melt down” not long before the approval process. Naturally they have melt downs which are safe but because of this failure was not chosen by Nixon. Also it should be mentioned Thorium reactors can use Uranium reactor waste as well and can in some cases reuse it’s own waste by cycling it back in. They are also scalable to be used more locally, even at the household level. The downside is they are highly caustic from the salt so the parts have a short lifespan.
Copenhagen Atomics have developed a molten salt reactor that they are able to build them in 40″ container size, in a factory and then assemble on site. They are intending to have the first working plant in 2026. Not sure how much they have progressed since I first heard of them a year ago, but it would be interesting to know more. I think there are some interesting youtube articles from them too.
did a quick google about the abundance of Thorium, and found the top 4 (in order) is India, Brasil, Australia, and US, so if China (number 11 on the scale) has 100,000 years of reserves, at least it will not have the Monopoly, and we can all learn from each other, to succeed in energy production. It would, however hurt our government here in Australia, for they have become far too used to having China pay for our coal exports.
as a fan of nuclear power sourcing, listening to the news about nuclear thorium molten salt reactors sounds like music to my ears. Thorium has become my favorite element in the periodic table years ago bacause of the posibility of building incredibly efficient and safe reactors, plus it has a cool name
A friend has just made a proof of concept two chamber bubble scrubber adding some ultrasonic cleaner and fogger units and a centrifuge stage wirh some cooling so he can smoke a joint without getting busted but he thinks might might scale to actually clean coal power enough that it might allow for the environmentally safe use of coal generation and the quality of life it brings.
As an Enigneer I can tell reducing the pressure in the pipes will reducing the efficacy. Increased pressure will also increase the volume expansion and with that the kinetic energy in the turbine. Increasing the liquids pressure doesn’t need a lot of volumetric work but with gas its different. Just think about putting pressure in a bike wheels and now image adding pressure to a bike wheel filled with water. Pumping air takes like 20 pumps but increasing the pressure of the tire filled by water you will only with big push. Dealing with pressures is no a problem in modern days anymore
“LFTR”s, pronounced “Lifter” ain’t new. America ran one for nearly four years in the 1960s at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Much safer and an all round better idea. There is 13 times as much energy in coal in the form of Thorium as there is available by burning the coal. So, another point in favor. The Germans figured out how to turn coal into synfuel – gasoline and diesel – before WWII. We don’t and never did have an energy problem. We have ‘who makes the damn decisions’ problem, and it’s acute, verging on terminal at this point.
Thorium reactor design is much more difficult then uranium 235 based reactors because of the neutron economy, that being said it is possible and you can make it easier if you can use some of the spent fuel from light water reactors to jump start a thorium MSR, but its almost impossible to get permission to do anything like that.
Thank you so much for this episode! You did a great job of summing up much of the assorted compendium of information that Kirk Sorensen had done in scattered articles and presentation last decade; and you got it into a clear, brief, easily approachable narrative and terminology. Thank you as well for the enheartening new information of how quickly thorium is blooming, including the all-important modular application. Modular thorium reactors could be the key to alleviating big-grid power fluctuations and vulnerabilities, a true network of generators to carry the main urban and industrial loads without having a whole region getting blacked out by a single tree falling on a trans line somewhere along the way. While wind and solar will rightly continue to proliferate for smaller, battery-buffered uses like single homes and specialty conditions, nuclear is the go-anywhere workhorse that can power major industrial parks or even space habitats (like O’Neill Cylinders) and colonies with continuous output. The combination of these technologies are key to the future on earth and in the cosmos.
Good presentation but the Idea and advantages of Thorium reactors have been clearly promoted for a long time. The technical challenges of plumbing and pumping high temperature, highly corrosive, radioactive molten salts are the more interesting subjects I would like to know more about. Material science is at the heart of these issues and it is evolving rapidly. What are the problems they are experiencing? What materials are they are trying; exotic metals, ceramics, carbon fiber, or ____________?. What do they think the solutions will be? This is what I would like to know more about and may provide a more realistic level of hope.
Great presentation. The Wikipedia entry for the TMSR-LF1 MSR in China does state that the initial fuel load is HALEU (uranium enriched to 19.75%) and that it is graphite moderated. I presume that in time the HALEU is consumed and replaced by uranium-233 as fuel. My understanding is that, although molten salt is the primary coolant, water is consumed by MSR designs during operation and they need to be located to a source of water, the same as other designs.
Not having to physically and chemically process “broken down” fuel Rod assemblies is a HUGE savings. The reprocessing of fuel rods involves melting them in… Molten salts. Molten salt reactors can be load following as well. They are not prone to thermal runaway or coolant loss at high pressure, as they operate at atmospheric pressure.
Very nice description of the thorium cycle. I have some grammar help for you at 10:55. “Added bonus” is redundant. Say “bonus” instead, without adding “added”. At 11:09, “general rule of thumb.” is redundant. Say “Rule of thumb” without the “general”. In short, “bonus” doesn’t need added, and “rule of thumb” doesn’t need “general.”
From what I recall current materials will only last for 6 to 12 years as a containment vessel in a molten salt reactor, an addition, while the waste products of thorium lose radioactivity far faster than uranium, they are initially far more deadly. On the plus side Thorium molten salt reactors not only “burn” far more of their fuel, resulting in less waste, but can also have other nuclear waste mixed into the fuel to burn it as well.
I 100 percent support the building of this experimental reactor. And the location. With the continued use of coal burning power plants in China not expected to end any time soon. This research reactor can help them develop a commercial blueprint, and China can replace the coal burners with shiny new thorium reactors.
In Europe, Naarea and Thorizon are working together to create the first modular molten salt reactor that could run on multiple fissile fuel sources, including Th. The first MSR to be built will be an 80 MW facility to go online in 2030. There are already plans to upscale this to commercial energy producers with a 250 MW version by 2035. The fuel used will come from existing spent fuel in France and Th mined in Sweden, Finland and Norway will be used as well. The advantage these modular reactors have is they can be built onsite for commercial consumption, requiring no power distribution infrastructure to be added. They can also be used as thermal batteries, storing excess power generated from green sources to be released during peak demand.
Sorry to say but it’s not New In India we have almost 50% reserve of thorium of the world We have worked & researched on it for decades and presently They are in use at various N-reactor site in India( since we had thorium in country in abundance and uranium was scarce ),may be the world doesn’t know since we work more and publicise less
You need more than heat to power a heat engine. You need a place to reject heat too. Putting a thorium/steam power plant in the Gobi desert means that the condensers have to be air cooled, hence much larger than a typical water cooled condenser. It is conceivable that a thorium Brayton cycle could be utilized, where the working fluid is air and that the waste heat would be in air and simply exhausted to the atmosphere.
Some mistakes in this article tbh, but the main point is nuclear energy is great & we need as much of it being built as possible & as fast as possible. I’d like to see the world doing what France has been for decades now but with newer designs coolants & fuels. Idealy we need a 20x increase in World Nuclear energy production by 2050 & a 200x increase by 2100. It’s doable but not if we carry on like this.
I have lots 9f questions: 1. as the reaction works off U233 fast neutron production, how do you start the process without adding too much/little U233. 2. What controls the rection speed – in a normal reactor there are graphite rods inserted to slow the neutrons down below fission speed. 3. What is the SCRAM protocol for emergency shutdown (I noticed the freeze plug but that won’t stop the U233 decay. 4. How do you remove the extremely toxic U233 products from the molten salt? 5. Each of your displays show the molten salt at its a temperature go straight at exchanger into the super-heated steam – why is it not fed into the lowest point and pulled out at the required temperature. 6. A major malfunction can occur with the design models you show if there is a thermal facture in the heat exchanger pipe. As all radiation by-products are dumped into the open loop turbine steam loop. 7. Why are rhe generating capacity powers you show s low? Anyhow enough questions for now 🙂
Indian Point Energy Center (I.P.E.C.) is a now defunct three-unit nuclear power station located in Buchanan, just south of Peekskill, in Westchester County, New York. Indian Point 1, built by ConEdison, was a 275-megawatt Babcock & Wilcox supplied pressurized water reactor that was issued an operating license on March 26, 1962 and began operations on September 16, 1962. The first core used a thorium-based fuel with stainless steel cladding, but this fuel did not live up to expectations for core life. It was switched to uranium in 1965. – wikipedia
one point, a plus point, is that Thorium reactors output can be regulated (modern steam turbines and generator designs are called for) simply by the circulation rate of the molten salt. The total heat produced is dependent on the residence time of the liquid in the active core. With a modern turbine and generator, these reactors can provide flexible output on demand.
Not bad, but mono-atomic Carbon 12 has 6 Protons, 6 Neutrons, and 6 Electrons. When excited by microwaves, it becomes a plasma, which can be used to generate electricity, and the waste product is a quasi-crystal diamond glass which can be molded, machined, and doped with various minerals and metals for a variety of properties. It makes an excellent building material — even for spaceships. BUT . . . not for men. Not until all war ends.
The concept of the Liquid Fuel, Solid moderator reactor first entered the scene via Eugene Wigner. His protégé, Alvin Weinberg, the youngest Director at ORNL, developed and successfully ran the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment from the mid-1960’s into the 1970’s. Abandoning the MSRE (the basis of LFTR) was a HUGE strategic error on the part of the USA.
If I’m not mistaken, there is one frequent error in the article. A Thorium reactor (actually splitting U233 btw) does not run on fast neutrons. Instead the neutrons are moderated by Graphite to slow them down as thermal neutrons. Those have an enormously higher probability for causing a fission. This is the main feature wich prevents fission reactions to occur everywhere else in the reactor, especially in the safety drain tanks. There simply is no Graphite moderator around, so no chain reaction possible. At least the Aircraft reactor and the original MSRE operated this way. And since this is a remarkable feature, I’m very sure the Chinese used this operation in their reactors also. I’m not 100% sure on this part though.
The first Chinese Thorium reactor will be almost exclusively used for H2 production. Some of the energy will be converted to electric energy for electrolysis, all the rest will just heat water for the purpose of H2 production. That’s why the plant will be built at a distance from consumers and it will still make sense. Experimental Thorium plant and experimental H2 installation looks like a good combination for low-emission energy production.
The major problem I see is that every single reactor needs it’s own dedicated, expensive, and heavily shielded reprocessing plant. And, the highly radioactive waste is all liquid instead of solid (traditional spent fuel), form. How do we deal with this deadly liquid in EVERY power plant ?? Great vid, BTW! 👍
I have to mention. The Atomic Bomb was used on Japan twice and both locations weren’t bathed in radiation. The whole radiation bit is if the people building the bomb wanted to add the stuff. The people who died within 3 miles but not 1 mile of the blast died not from radiation but the heat and pressure of the blast. 1 mile vaporized and 2 miles cooked.
Let us be clear. Thorium is not a fissionable fuel, it is a component of the Thorium-U233 cycle, which has to be started using a more or less conventional U237 reactor to convert Thorium to U233. By the way, U233 has been used to build at least one experimental nuclear weapon, though I don’t think it is in common use.
the reason why it failed in late 70s for commercial purpose because the pipes at that time break down easily after 5 years. But China also noted that the 70s experiment failed due to unrealistic expectations that 1 plant can produce large enough to support a large city, thus they decide to build them in small size(smaller power generation output) to support just an industry area which can last for decades with low maintenance. The another reason to build a small plant is because China has planned to build it in Moon and want it to be as small as possible since it is there to just support a moon station base in future rather than an industry or large population.
As stainless steel melts at 2,500 degrees F, it would seem that the piping and other containment vessels in a Thorium reactor would need to use some sort of metal alloy. Possibly using Tungsten (?). Whatever is used it would not be cheap. Another alternative would be to use cooling coils that surround the piping and structures.
Thanks for this new and very entertaining view of the MSR which promises local Modular installation give a much better energy picture than a huge, centralized fusion installation. Much more flexibility and the amazing benefit of making all that forever nuclear waste sitting around in drums with nothing to do into a very valuable resource!
The one reason, why the Thorium path was never followed through is that the funding was mainly provided by military budgets. And they all wanted Plutonium and Uranium by-products to produce nuclear weapons. This kind of spending power was never made available to people who talk such nonsense as peaceful use for all of man-kind. On top of that, whereas thorium is globally abundant, uranium is concentrated in certain areas and made Russia and the U.S. monopolies of the nuclear industry – further strengthening the uranium industry of thorium competition. And here we are.
Great article, thank you for that. I think that making a safe and renewable choice for local energy production is the best way to go. In the country i live we are not allowed to have our own power supply that is not connected to the power grid, this make everyone vulnerable in case of shortages and infrastructure failure.
it sound like a win for me. google says we will run out of fossil fuels by 2060, and I believe nuclear reactors are the only way to meet our energy requirements, so it’s really heartening to know there’s a safer alternative to uranium. and it’s especially great to know all the world powers are trying to build their own
Absolutely, the world should push forward with Fusion research! Thorium-Molten Salt Reactors ALSO need to be fielded, because what we have currently operating have serious potential (and demonstrated) downsides. TMSR (Thorium-Molten Salt Reactor) technology has the potential to wean us from the more traditional technologies, and provide the increasing energy that the world demands. Eventual commercial Fusion energy production is still a way off in the future, whereas the TMSR technology may give the breathing space needed within a relatively short timeline. Plus,it is always advisable to “not put all your eggs in one basket”
The article creator touched on it but the reason Thorium never took off wasn’t because of technology challenges it was because it didn’t produce Plutonium and the Military Industrial Complex had no place in their hearts for a reactor that didn’t produce the feeds stocks required for nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple.
They say cooling water is not needed, but if steam is generated and passed through a turbine to produce power, the exhaust from the turbine must be condensed back into water for the steam cycle. This amounts to thousands of gallons of water that gets evaporated into the atmosphere. Where will you get that water in the Gobi desert?
Ive always loved throwing that ‘steam turbine’ wrench into everyone’s internet discoveries. Guy: ‘Hey, man! Did you hear that they finally cracked fusion and its closer than ever before! Bleeding edge science ftw’! Me: ‘All it does is spin steam turbines in a new way’. Lets hope Helion’s fusion method isnt a hoax as it actually uses a novel way to create and capture electricity. Ive been following them for years and I was absolutely captivated by them, but the more I follow, the more I feel that its just all too neat and convenient. I hope I am wrong.
Back in the cold war, the current nuclear reactor was specifically design to produce nuclear material for… ‘other purposes’, it’s just that they figured they could make it cheaper by slapping a turbine on it and call it a generator. That’s why the thorium reactor got canceled and no other reactor ever got approved. Gotta maintain that status quo.
You do know Dr Ben that the TerraPower/GEH Natrium plant is NOT a molten salt reactor right? The molten salt is simply used to store the heat (similar to thermal solar) to allow shifting to peak demand. It is actually a Sodium Fast Reactor using solid metalilc U fuel, and pure liquid sodium metal coolant (not a salt) very similar to EBR-II or PRISM.
The fast decaying nuclear waste (hundreds of years) is only if you process it and separate out the transurqnic elements. (result of neutron absorption) and leave only fission products (direct fragments). This is true for conventional nuclear fuel, too. Molten salt is in a form that can be directly and continuously processed, unlike solid rods. And stating from uranium 233 means it takes more absorption to generate transuranic waste so it produces less of it. But I’m afraid thorium is being oversold here by some fanatics.
Thorium molten salt reactors should be a focus of any country trying to keep it’s energy generation technology relevant into the 2030’s. Fusion research is many decades away from being anywhere near economically feasible. TMSR is attainable on a commercial within a decade if the financing is there to solve some of the remaining issues.
AFAIK, your comment regarding any potential advantage of Thorium molten salt reactors siting in desert areas because they “don’t use cooling water” is wrong. The cooling water in any steam turbine based electrical generation is used to condense the steam. Then the condensate is pumped back to generate more steam. The molten salt cooling loop still is used to generate steam. It is just the high pressure part of the system is separated from the reactor. If you site any steam driven system in the desert with limited availability of make up water, you need to use air cooled heat exchangers, which use more energy and cost more than cooling towers.
The Santa Susana nuclear accident was the 1st & by far the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history. It was a liquid sodium cooled reactor, & b/c it was experimental there was no containment structure (the reactor was in a normal building with windows just 18 miles from Hollywood!). A meltdown of nuclear fuel happened in 1959. My grandmother & grandfather lived in Chatsworth, just downwind of the site. They both got cancer exactly 5 years later, in 1964. My grandpa died in 1966, he was 41. My grandma was left disfigured from surgeries, and her cancer returned years later & took her life. Her surgeon said it looked like cancer cells were sprayed across every organ & tissue in her abdomen. What happened to my grandma & her 3 kids after my grandpa’s death was heartbreaking. There is a real, tangible & devastating cost to all this science fiction. People have died, families have been decimated, entire regions have been poisoned for centuries, & the cancer causing agents we have released are being consumed by every living thing on the planet on a daily basis, humans included. Stop promoting this.
I had no idea thorium was a realistic option for nuclear power. This is quite interesting. Meanwhile the US government argues about social issues that are personal issues for individuals and not the government’s business and using tax money for ge n o c i d e instead of scientific projects like this.
The advantage of these new technologies is that they allow for entrepreneurs to enter the energy sector and make huge amounts of money without any knowledge of what the negative consequences will be. Example: Wind farms were built in the Atlantic Ocean to provide low carbon energy perceived to be an environmental improvement. What we do not know is what the total impacts of building these wind farms. Strip mining to produce the materials to build them, CO2 production from building materials, length of energy production, reason marine mammals are dying in the area they are located, costs and impacts of maintenance, etc. The one thing we know for sure is that somebody made millions building them.
I’m a sincere fan of the proliferation of Thorium use for power generation. For all of the reasons mentioned, Thorium beats traditional Uranium-based nuclear fission. Nuclear is a necessity for the future of low-carbon electricity. My understanding is traditional reactors stand to serve approximately 20% base load, with few opportunities to ramp-up/down. I am intrigued by the sodium molten salt reactor proposed by Bill Gates. Attempting to solve the dispatchability issue is certainly a noble cause.
The only reason molten salt reactors weren’t commercialized in the 1950s was because the US Government wanted a single model that could be used both on nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, as well as for commercial power generation. Sadly, the government’s inefficiency at trying to be efficient is what killed the innovation.
its always the same question – money, example can make LAB DIAMONDS, but not GOLD. diamonds is made from just 1 element, gold is made from a few molecular atom types not a single. so its much harder to replicate. The worlds largest atom collider did actually make some molecules of gold, but the cost to run that and get the few atoms of gold it created, was 1000X more expensive then current gold prices, so its not feasable to make, as lose to much money, to get a return to see any profit from lab made gold. Unlike diamond which is single element carbon, its simpler to lab make, and still make a profit from, vs gold a multi atom resource
Looking at these simplified models, it appears that Thorium reactors are constant load devices. The heat produced drives a steam turbine or gets wasted. Conventionally, this is not acceptable. However, If Thorium is cheap as a fuel, another use appears. Off peak surplus gets used for co-located quantum computer clusters.
If one country can reform into a low carbon future it’s pobably China. Their economic and political system is, of course, far from perfect, but they don’t really need to think so much about the ‘commercial’ bit. If they want something built, they build it. They’re not dependent on profits or the whims of Capital, of making new billionaires or of strategic priorities dictated by Capital. That’s the power of the planned economy.
I remember when there was such fear about nuclear reactors using uranium and then there started low key talking and mentioning about thorium the safe nuclear reaction, and I remember the rise of this topic just 4 years ago during you know what, and you started hearing China jumping on this technology and started developing this 4 years ago. Now 4 years later, they are developing one to work in full production?! They managed to beat the USA in this technology in just 4 years….
:glasses-purple-yellow-diamond:Consuming all possible reactor fuels available on the planet …heats up the world further. It`s a simple fact that a lot of people don’t think or talk about. Wind, Sun, Water Flow / Ocean Current, Earth Core Heat – It`s all already available and laid out to humans, one just needs to build stuff to use that energy.
There’s some bigger factors of why Thorium wasn’t utilized besides “it can’t produce nukes”, but we probally lost them with time. Otherwise we would have plenty of functional thorium power plants around the world by now. Just think about it, most countries don’t have access to uranium power plants so they either have to coal or build expensive clean alternatives like hidroeletric.
I have spent many years researching this very topic. As you stated Alvin Wienburgh (?spelling) also helped design the common light water reactors mostly used now but he considered the TMSR or even a UMSR (Uranium Molten Salt Reactor) as a much safer option. But as you said The Powers That Be in the US wanted plutonium more than safety. Even though China is burning more coal than the rest of the world combined they don’t have that much quality coal to burn for too long. They also have the advantage of they can write whatever safety protocols they like as the government is not answerable to anyone and if they turn a distant province and some of the people into radioactive glass……………well………we’ll try and do better next time.
there is a dangerous secret about Thorium MSR. the thorium breeds the fuel : U233. U”££ is as mentioned, fissile, which is where the power comes from. However, U233 can therefore be chemically separated from the mixture. as also mentioned in the article, U233 fissions really well across the range of neutron energies: a very high capture crosssection. BUT- like U235, U233 has a relatively low spontaneous fission rate, and can simply be assembed to a critical mass to make a fission bomb. No need to compress it like plutonium. therefore and i think this is the specific reason why the research was shut down in the early 70’s: U233 is a proliferation nightmare scenario. as Oppenhimer said” if we had known about U233 we probably wouldnt have needed to go down the plutonium route” paraphrasing. no need for centrifuges or difficult compression warhead designs. the only saving grace is U232, which is a powerful gamma emitter, making handling it difficult. but there is a way to get rid of U232.
I love these people, my stepfather included, who thinks we should be using coal more than ever. Says wind energy capture is unsustainable. Funny thing is a generator or motor that makes electricity must be turned to do so. Either by steam from nuclear or an engine from petroleum or from water behind a dam. Wind turbines only require wind. No complicated plants or dams to maintain. The generator is turned without any complicated infrastructure. If that isn’t sustainable nothing is.
I don’t get it. – A thorium powerplant also needs a nearby source of water to feed the steam turbine circuit that generates electricity. But, in the Gobi desert, I don’t think that there is an abundant source of water except for underground water which is limited and should be reserved for agriculture and drinking water. Yes, I understand that condensers reduce the consumption of water but does not eliminate it.
I have been a proponent of thorium MSRs for decades now. It’s sad for the US that China is kicking our butts in so many ways but that’s on us. They have built out high speed rail throughout China, invested deeply in solar, gone all in on EVs and are about to achieve their biggest breakthrough. Once the small modular reactors take off, the world will change dramatically.
The USA pioneered this research decades ago, and many countries working on thorium have built on findings from the USA, particularly those of Alvin Weinberg. Recently, if I’m not mistaken, India has also made significant progress with their KAMINI or FBTR reactors. I believe they are currently in stage 3, focusing on reusing waste material to develop a thorium fuel cycle. According to Google searches on thorium reserves by country, India, Brazil, Australia, and the USA are among the top, with Canada not ranked, along with other countries. China has low thorium reserves. EU and other scientific R&D institutions may have conducted research on this decades ago, they largely focused on conventional nuclear power until accidents like Fukushima shifted their attention. I don’t understand why China often claims to have been the first in various advancements.
The importance of the Chinese reactor is that it meets both of what I consider the most important characteristics of future desirable nuclear reactors. Most importantly it eliminates pressurized water cooling and the potential of core meltdown and explosive release. Molten salt cooling eliminates the need for both costly high pressure containments and any need to site near cooling water to condense steam. The latter can largely eliminate the need for new bulk transmission because such reactors can be sited near any load for ultimate service reliability. Note that Terra Power’s Natrium also meets this most important goal with intermediate molten sodium cooling, Secondly, using molten fuel provides self regulation, walk-away safety and the potential to breed its own fuel from existing waste as well as abundant Thorium. The first two of those characteristics should also make siting much easier. I note that you ignore other Thorium reactor developers such as Copenhagen Atomics, who may also achieve near term commercial Thorium reactors before 2030. I also see all of the needed reactor advantages in the fast breeding MCFR being developed by Terra Power, EPRI, Southern Company and others that could use any fuel, including waste, without needing periodic moderator replacement – and readily capable of GW sizing. The Chinese reactor is not the only advanced option and Thorium is not the only breeder fuel option.
i wonder how this design will impact nuclear fuel recycling ? normally spent fuel technically still have 90% of the energy content left but the excess neutron absorber fission byproduct degrade the fission efficiency enough to make the fuel uneconomical. But since it’s liquid format, I’m assuming the neutron absorber by product can be filter out of the liquid instead of going through an expensive recycling process like what france is currently doing right now.
On the face of it, this sounds like a great technology – one which, if it turns out to have the potential which it appears to have – would be of great benefit to mankind. It seems as though the waste products would be far less of a problem than with current nuclear technology, but I wonder if we could have more info on this please?
I do not think the world should close the doors on any potential power generation, as long the benefits outweigh the risk, whether it is Solar, wind, tidal, nuclear or fusion technologies. The most important thing to consider is that fossil fuels are finite and eventually we will run out of oil and coal before we run out of nuclear or renewables alternatives. Renewables may not necessarily be the answer to all of our energy needs. However, these technologies can be part of the solution.
recently india finished its 2nd stage of nuclear program for thorium based energy generation it works in three stages it requires 99.25% thorium and 0.75% uranium to produce energy, in first 2 stages plutonium and uranium will be produced as by products which will be used in 3rd stage to produce energy when third stage will finished it expected to fullfill most of indias energy demand and in acheiving net zero carbon eission goal till 2070 also this reactor is said to be more safe compare to traditional uranium based reactors, also it is said to produce very less or none nuclear waste as most of it will be recycled hope it acheives success fast as it will improve worlds energy needs all thanks to our great indian nuclear scientist dr homi bhabha
At the 2011 annual conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, it was announced that “China has initiated a research and development project in thorium MSR technology.” The World Nuclear Association notes that the China Academy of Sciences in January 2011 announced its R&D program, “claiming to have the world’s largest national effort on it, hoping to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology.” According to Martin, “China has made clear its intention to go it alone,” adding that China already has a monopoly over most of the world’s rare earth minerals.: 157 In early 2012, it was reported that China, using components produced by the West and Russia, planned to build two prototypes, one of them a molten salt-cooled pebble-bed reactor by 2015,: minute 1:37: minute 44:20 and a research molten salt reactor: minute 54:00 by 2017, had budgeted the project at $400 million and requiring 400 workers. China also finalized an agreement with a Canadian nuclear technology company to develop improved CANDU reactors using thorium and uranium as a fuel. Dr. Jiang Mianheng, son of China’s former leader Jiang Zemin, led a thorium delegation in non-disclosure talks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, and by late 2013 China had officially partnered with Oak Ridge to aid China in its own development.
Very interesting. TY, for an awesome article. We need a variety of power plants and power sources. I think having the power plant that can make more power as the demand goes up is great. We also need a variety of these other plants to continue to power our future. Would be cool to see less hazardous waste. Smaller more modern fuel sources and plant designs than a traditional nuke power plant. In the countries that will use thorium, good. Use the material and make power. Their are many things I liked to hear you talk about in regards to thorium. I think uranium is maybe not the way to keep pushing hard for. We need a lot of new plants and major upgrades to the worlds power grids. If we are going to step into the future. Hopefully well before 2040. Thats not far away from now. A great deal of work needs to go into the build up of many countries and infrastructure. To include their power grids, roads, housing, sky scrapers, big apartment buildings, waste water treatment, clean water supply, warehouses, manufacturing plant’s, eletric car charging capacity, and many more power drawing facilities. The amount of extra power and plants that will need to continue to grow big cities and towns is a big concern going into the future. TY again. Cool article.
Excellent article! I’m very glad that the almighty algorithm suggested it. I’ve been wondering about who would be first to create a functioning thorium reactor for a long time. I guess we will see in a few years if China can actually pull it off. If they do, I hope they choose to not cut too many corners on safety.
I prefer the Uranium Recycling method for several reasons. it reduces the amount of nuclear waste currently being stored, and it reduces the radioactive life of that waste from many thousands, to around 200 years ultimately. It is a proven technology and does not require further mining. Currently the US has enough nuclear waste; when recycled, to provide ALL its energy needs for the next 150 years.
It’s an excellent start, but large scale power generation creates more of the same for the average citizen. I think we (United States) should be pursuing the aircraft reactor design. Smaller and streamlined reactors for buildings, homes, aircraft and ships (possibly rail engines and even cars). Things that serve the people and not corporate greed and avarice.
I get the feeling we are moving into a transitional phase regardng the ever increasing energy demands, however there is a significant financial and commercial issue with this move, given the current imbedded energy system. To transition this system toward a legacy system will be extremely difficult given the interwoven investment, trade and job markets being established for a very long time. Questions like: Would Thorium Mining replace coal and mining practices required for other energy systems? How would the job markets be effected by a move to this new technology? and What other industries would be effected by this new technology? I know this is way in the future and there is enough time to figure all of this out, but these questions have to be answered.
Over 12 years ago I sent a massive letter to my government about how we had the opportunity to make a thorium plant before anyone in the world because we literally already have all the resources because we already have giant byproduct warehouses of thorium from our uranium mines and our government was looking for a new power plant, they did fuck all and since then have made zero new power plants. We instead dumped millions into our coal burning plant.
I think all types of nuclear energy are increasingly becoming less cost effective compared to solar, but would still potentially be useful in the future for certain areas… so worth exploring and obviously China would be looking to cash in on selling 1. the tech 2. the knowledge 3. the massive amounts of Thorium they have. However… we’ll wait and see… because although there may be some demand for it, the world is constantly changing and adapting in many ways these days, and battery storage might win out for efficiency… getting more solar panels on rooves, and some smaller scale wind turbines.
Nice overview. However, some typos in your script might confuse some viewers & fail to relay remarkable data. I.E: You said that Thorium is 3-4x more abundant than uranium. True, but not all uranium is FUEL. Most is U-238 which is Not fuel. U-235 is about 5% of total natural Uranium. Therefore, Thorium is +60 to 80x more abundant than usable Uranium! Literally, Thorium is dirt-cheap and massively more usable than Uranium. Furthermore, conventional reactors can only use about 5% of their uranium fuel making usable refined Uranium fuel as expensive as platinum! Overall – great content buddy.
I had a nuclear engineer friend call me several decades ago asking if I could find a Thorium mine since Thorium power production was going to be the next big thing. I found the Thorium. It is still there. Meanwhile, in China they are making it happen. What does that say about the US in the last few years?